An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

You forgot the follow-up:

The average person then says, "well, that's that. It's all that I, or anyone else, needs to know."

The scientist then says, "well, that's the best I can come up with for now, but I'm going to keep digging around until I can confirm it or find a better explanation."

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen:Noah_Tall: An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

You forgot the follow-up:

The average person then says, "well, that's that. It's all that I, or anyone else, needs to know."

The scientist then says, "well, that's the best I can come up with for now, but I'm going to keep digging around until I can confirm it or find a better explanation."

Yeah, what we have seen so far strongly suggests that there must be vast amounts of "dark matter" out there to hold the universe together. But if further observation and experimentation can't confirm that, or suggests something else, scientists will start using that explanation.

Compare that to "creationists", who twist and manipulate data until it screams to confirm their basic assumption that God made everything.

Actually virtual particles that phase in and out of existence so quickly you can't detect them currently. But that model provides the best (read: most accurate) predictions of atomic events and quantum events.

So basically physics has reached the limit of human speech and math is all that's left. Do these virtual particles even exist? Maybe no. But assuming they do, we get good predictions. Good enough we've built some really big particle accelerators lately.

So my hope is eventually science will catch up to Buddhism's Heart Sutra.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

The scientist works under the assumption that their knowledge is incorrect and is constantly seeking to refine or replace it

The 'average person' that you have described (which in no way resembles an actual average person) just uses a safety net for all intellectual pitfalls and sticks god in every gap in understanding that they come across.

One of these two behaviors will enrich the human race the other will stagnate it.

jake_lex:Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Noah_Tall: An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

You forgot the follow-up:

The average person then says, "well, that's that. It's all that I, or anyone else, needs to know."

The scientist then says, "well, that's the best I can come up with for now, but I'm going to keep digging around until I can confirm it or find a better explanation."

Yeah, what we have seen so far strongly suggests that there must be vast amounts of "dark matter" out there to hold the universe together. But if further observation and experimentation can't confirm that, or suggests something else, scientists will start using that explanation.

Compare that to "creationists", who twist and manipulate data until it screams to confirm their basic assumption that God made everything.

Creationists -Step 1: This is the answerStep 2: This is some data that doesn't fit the answerStep 3: Twist the data to fit the answer

Scientists -Step 1: This is the answerStep 2: This is some data that doesn't fit the answerStep 3: Fix the answer to fit the data

Egoy3k:The 'average person' that you have described (which in no way resembles an actual average person) just uses a safety net for all intellectual pitfalls and sticks god in every gap in understanding that they come across.

Yeah, the average person just thinks about titties and beer and who cares what the sun's made of as long as brats are on sale for game day.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

Early calculations to predict the orbit of the planets were very messy to account for the Earth being the center of the solar system.

Newton came along and with his theories of gravity, the orbital equations became much simpler. As long as you put the Sun in the center of the solar syatem.

This worked surprisingly well until they tried to predict the orbit of Mercury. Then Newtonian physics failed miserably.

Then along comes this Einstein guy and with his equations, we can now predict the motion of Mercury.

Then they realize that there isn't enough matter and energy in the universe to make the equations work on a universal scale.

So we are left with a need for exotic dark matter and dark energy to mae the equations work:Or perhaps we need a new Einstein/Newton to come up with a better set of equatons.

Noah_Tall:invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

This is completely incorrect, and you should be ashamed to post such nonsense.

1) Dark matter is not a force. It is a form of matter, and it is non-baryonic in nature. Beyond that, we don't know exactly what it is, but we do know enough to know it's matter and it isn't made of baryons.

2) There IS an invisible force that fills the universe, and that's called gravity. If you're incredulous that gravity exists, then I'm sorry about your brain injury.

3) Dark matter CAN be and HAS been detected through the gravity it exerts. Distributions of dark matter have been mapped in this galaxy and in others. It's detected by the invisible force listed above.

Noah_Tall:A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

I know you're a troll, but we can detect dark matter indirectly and map it in a way that is scientific, empirical and repeatable.

I just read the wiki entry on dark matter, and I still don't get it. My interpretation is it's the primeval left over of the big bang, that didn't bang (condense into ordinary matter). The universe is mostly particles that coalesced into matter, but the bulk of the big bang never did anything except become dark matter, or unrestricted unformed free elementary particles or pre-particles or??. Did I get that wrong? Showing me the math won't help unfortunately, I never got past college level math.

Noah_Tall:An average person sees something that that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it God and they are called superstitious.

A scientist sees something that can't be explained based on their knowledge. Rather than assuming that perhaps their knowledge is incorrect they give credit to an invisible force that fills the universe and can not be detected in any manner. They call it dark matter and they get a prize.

10/10

Sounded legit as a person who might actually think this argument will work on Fark.Got a bunch of bites.

indarwinsshadow:I just read the wiki entry on dark matter, and I still don't get it. My interpretation is it's the primeval left over of the big bang, that didn't bang (condense into ordinary matter). The universe is mostly particles that coalesced into matter, but the bulk of the big bang never did anything except become dark matter, or unrestricted unformed free elementary particles or pre-particles or??. Did I get that wrong? Showing me the math won't help unfortunately, I never got past college level math.

It is an undefined constant that, combined with dark energy, makes the rest of the equations work. Its technical name is Whathef*ckium.

Actually virtual particles that phase in and out of existence so quickly you can't detect them currently. But that model provides the best (read: most accurate) predictions of atomic events and quantum events.

So basically physics has reached the limit of human speech and math is all that's left. Do these virtual particles even exist? Maybe no. But assuming they do, we get good predictions. Good enough we've built some really big particle accelerators lately.

So my hope is eventually science will catch up to Buddhism's Heart Sutra.

Except that quantum rules DO NOT APPLY to things the size of galaxies.

stuhayes2010:Except that quantum rules DO NOT APPLY to things the size of galaxies.

But if "empty" space is full of virtual particles it does something to the calculations that helps explain the acceleration and mass issues (which makes no sense with actually empty space) or something.

It's not surprising that a country entirely peopled by criminals would produce a person capable of defrauding the entire scientific community. Just stick to what you're good at, Aussies-- 'roos, accents, and iocaine powder.

Granny's in the cellarLordy, can't you smell herCooking greasy biscuits on the stoveIn her eye there is some matterThat keeps dripping in the batterAnd she whistles as the [sniff] runs down her noseDown her nose, down her noseShe whistles as the [sniff] runs down her noseIn her eye there is some matterThat keeps dripping in the batterAnd she whistles as the [sniff] runs down her nose

Granpa's in the basementAnd to his amazementThere is something in the wine he made last fallAnd his eyes are getting redderAs his tongue is getting wetter'Cause it's ninety-seven percent alcohol Alcohol, alcohol It's ninety-seven percent alcoholHis eyes are getting redderAs his tongue is getting wetter 'Cause it's nInety-seven percent alcohol.

Granny's in the laundry And she's in a quandary 'Cause she put some starch in with her underwearAnd it's gonna be disasterWhen it dries as hard as plasterBut she's tough as nails and so she doesn't care Underwear, underwear She put some starch in with her underwearAnd It's gonna be disaster when it dries as hard as plasterBut she's tough as nails so she don't care.

The universe is like an expanding loaf of raisin bread, with the distance between raisins increasing. Why aren't the raisins also expanding?

If the raisins are galaxies, than gravity keeps them from expanding. Galaxies in a cluster will generally stay together too, I think. Eventually (according to the Big Rip model) dark energy will become stronger than gravity and even galaxies and steller/planetary systems will fly apart. But that's a long, long time from now.

TheOther:Another Stupid Science Question:The universe is like an expanding loaf of raisin bread, with the distance between raisins increasing. Why aren't the raisins also expanding?

Not a stupid question. The expansion of space itself is not exactly intuitive. The basic answer is that space and matter are not equivalent quantities. One can change without a collinear change in the other.

ThrobblefootSpectre:jack21221: 3) Dark matter CAN be and HAS been detected through the gravity it exerts.

I'm not arguing against your main point, nor defending the religious guy, but this statement is somewhat circular reasoning.

Dark matter was hypothesized to explain certain gravitational effects. So using those gravitational effects as evidence of dark matter doesn't sit well. It goes something like this...

Scientist 1: How do you explain effect X?Scientist 2: Well we have hypothesized cause Z.Scientist 1: Do you have any evidence of Z?Scientist 2: Sure, look at this effect X is has.

Scientist 1: How do you explain why there's this puddle in the middle of the floor here. It just rained, but I see no dripping right now, nobody around, and I know there's no plumbing up there.Scientist 2: Well, there's probably a leak in the roof.Scientist 1: Do you have any evidence of a leak in the roof?Scientist 2: Sure, there's a big puddle of water on the floor.

Sure someone could have spilled some water there, but it seems like the most plausible explanation with the available information you have now.

If someone comes by and says, "ya, that was my bad, I'll clean it up", then the scientists throw out the dripping roof theory and go with the "that guy's clumsy."

ThrobblefootSpectre:TheOther: Another Stupid Science Question:The universe is like an expanding loaf of raisin bread, with the distance between raisins increasing. Why aren't the raisins also expanding?

Not a stupid question. The expansion of space itself is not exactly intuitive. The basic answer is that space and matter are not equivalent quantities. One can change without a collinear change in the other.

But isn't most matter made up of empty space? I guess the question is why isn't that internal space also expanding?

Actually virtual particles that phase in and out of existence so quickly you can't detect them currently. But that model provides the best (read: most accurate) predictions of atomic events and quantum events.

So basically physics has reached the limit of human speech and math is all that's left. Do these virtual particles even exist? Maybe no. But assuming they do, we get good predictions. Good enough we've built some really big particle accelerators lately.

So my hope is eventually science will catch up to Buddhism's Heart Sutra.

Except that quantum rules DO NOT APPLY to things the size of galaxies.

No snark, but a serious question: is there a size limit to quantum states and theory? I can't profess to being an expert, but I am a fan of experimental science. I always thought it was a relativistic thing, like galaxies are the relative size quarks are to us and whatnot when compared to the whole universe

ThrobblefootSpectre:So using those gravitational effects as evidence of dark matter doesn't sit well.

This is not true. There are many independent lines of evidence for dark matter. Consider the WMAP power spectrum, galactic rotation curves, the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, etc. The fact is that dark matter exists. One of the properties of dark matter is that it interacts gravitationally with baryonic matter. Therefore, it is not wrong to say that we can detect where dark matter is through its gravitational interactions with baryonic matter.

The original poster said that dark matter is undetectable. This is incorrect. Dark matter is detectable.

This is the bullet cluster, color coded for your convenience. The majority of the mass is in the section colored blue. The pink section is where most of the baryonic matter is. As these two clusters of galaxies collided, they slowed down. However, dark matter only interacts with other dark matter gravitationally (and not through the electromagnetic force, for example, as in when things collide), so the dark matter was not slowed as much, and separated from the baryonic matter.

This is indirect detection of dark matter. This is why the original trol, i mean, poster, is incorrect. Dark matter can be detected.

croesius:No snark, but a serious question: is there a size limit to quantum states and theory? I can't profess to being an expert, but I am a fan of experimental science. I always thought it was a relativistic thing, like galaxies are the relative size quarks are to us and whatnot when compared to the whole universe

The problem is the relative size of ħ. Quantum effects become visible when you're looking at quantities small enough that the term with ħ in it cannot be neglected. For example, consider Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. That states that the change in momentum times the change in position has to be larger than (or equal to) ħ/2. Classically, we'd say that this is zero, but since ħ is so small, we might as well call it zero for most things. But it's true that the position times the momentum of a galaxy is still uncertain by at least ħ/2. It just is silly to talk about something 30+ orders of magnitude smaller than what we can measure with telescopes.

jack21221:ThrobblefootSpectre: So using those gravitational effects as evidence of dark matter doesn't sit well.

This is not true. There are many independent lines of evidence for dark matter. Consider the WMAP power spectrum, galactic rotation curves, the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, etc. The fact is that dark matter exists. One of the properties of dark matter is that it interacts gravitationally with baryonic matter. Therefore, it is not wrong to say that we can detect where dark matter is through its gravitational interactions with baryonic matter.

The original poster said that dark matter is undetectable. This is incorrect. Dark matter is detectable.

[www.nasa.gov image 516x374]

This is the bullet cluster, color coded for your convenience. The majority of the mass is in the section colored blue. The pink section is where most of the baryonic matter is. As these two clusters of galaxies collided, they slowed down. However, dark matter only interacts with other dark matter gravitationally (and not through the electromagnetic force, for example, as in when things collide), so the dark matter was not slowed as much, and separated from the baryonic matter.

This is indirect detection of dark matter. This is why the original trol, i mean, poster, is incorrect. Dark matter can be detected.

TheOther:But isn't most matter made up of empty space? I guess the question is why isn't that internal space also expanding?

Bound matter (atoms, solar systems, galaxies) doesn't expand in the same way that free, essentially non-interacting matter does. It resists the expansion of space. (Technically, it still does expand, but at a much, much slower rate.) See here and here.